It’s irrelevant about pork stomach,she ordered a beef burrito..
It's not relevant what she ordered, but what she ate.
She’s a woman in her 20’s who has more than likely ate enough meat to know the difference between pork and beef without chomping through most of a burrito..
It's not relevant what she ordered, but what she ate.
She’s a woman in her 20’s who has more than likely ate enough meat to know the difference between pork and beef without chomping through most of a burrito..
and not just pork but pork offal which has a very distinct flavour and is an acquired taste. personally I’m more inclined to believe what’s on the the receipt rather than the fantastic and oh so convenient tale spun by a convicted drug cheat doper.
She’s a woman in her 20’s who has more than likely ate enough meat to know the difference between pork and beef without chomping through most of a burrito..
and not just pork but pork offal which has a very distinct flavour and is an acquired taste. personally I’m more inclined to believe what’s on the the receipt rather than the fantastic and oh so convenient tale spun by a convicted drug cheat doper.
That is a tautological childish intellectual error.
After having waived one round of appeal, without immediate and retro-active WADA Code reform, overturning the ADRV, or reducing the sanction, doesn't seem possible.
My future recommendation for athletes in a similar situation is to plead "no contest" and qualify for a 1-year reduction for not fighting it.
Then join forces with long-time USADA chief Travis Tygart to bring about necessary reform the WADA Code in order to reduce the future risk of innocent athletes being railroaded into a 4-year ban, and treated like intentional dopers.
The only remaining unanswered question here is whether a strong argument exists that Shebly actually doped. Unfortunately neither the CAS nor the AIU asked or answered that question.
As I said on another thread, Travis Tygart hasn't said a single word about Houlihan's case (only to say that she couldn't run in the trials). A vocal critic of the system and how it can result in innocent athletes testing positive hasn't said one word in support of Houlihan - keep in mind that he did voice support for Shayna Jack. I don't think he's joining the Houlihan defense team any time soon.
Still, cool that you're now offering legal advice. Is this available to anyone on Letsrun or just dopers? Where did you do your law degree?
Your point 3 is not what you said; you missed stuff out to change the meaning.
Seriously? You'll never stop lying.
Check, I wrote:
"I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again."
Not the connecting "and".
That sentence is short for: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and I almost wish now that CAS will have to decide again." That's a huge difference to: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal. Fact: CAS will have to decide again."
When will you apologize for inventing stuff? Never of course, you'll just keep lying. Can you at least register your handle, so that I can add you to my ignore list?
As I said on another thread, Travis Tygart hasn't said a single word about Houlihan's case (only to say that she couldn't run in the trials). A vocal critic of the system and how it can result in innocent athletes testing positive hasn't said one word in support of Houlihan - keep in mind that he did voice support for Shayna Jack. I don't think he's joining the Houlihan defense team any time soon.
Still, cool that you're now offering legal advice. Is this available to anyone on Letsrun or just dopers? Where did you do your law degree?
You were the one who seemed to think I could offer insight and value to Houlihan's legal team, and said so without requiring my credentials before.
My advice was specifically directed towards innocent athletes unlucky enough to unknowingly ingest a banned substance, in a position lacking concrete evidence to prove it -- but everyone is free to consider what they think may apply to them, at their own risk.
Tygart may have his reasons to withhold his comments on Houlihan specifically.
I could see that commenting on the case of an Australian swimmer wouldn't raise the same questions about his neutrality, as commenting on an American athlete subject to USADA, on a case not adjudicated by USADA. Such comments may lead some to question his bias and motivation and calls of national protectionism.
But Tygart DID comment on Jarrion Lawson's case and Brenda Martinez's case. Like I said, Tygart is not publicity-shy, he's also repeatedly criticised WADA rules in this area. If he thought Houlihan could be used to further his crusade to have these rules changed, then he'd use her case. He hasn't said a single word, except to remind USATF that she is a banned athlete and is not allowed to compete.
That strikes me as noteworthy. As the head of USADA, it's almost certain he has had access to the entirety of her case, both argumentation and evidence. Would he really stay quiet if this was a clear case of injustice?
You were the one who seemed to think I could offer insight and value to Houlihan's legal team, and said so without requiring my credentials before.
My advice was specifically directed towards innocent athletes unlucky enough to unknowingly ingest a banned substance, in a position lacking concrete evidence to prove it -- but everyone is free to consider what they think may apply to them, at their own risk.
Tygart may have his reasons to withhold his comments on Houlihan specifically.
I could see that commenting on the case of an Australian swimmer wouldn't raise the same questions about his neutrality, as commenting on an American athlete subject to USADA, on a case not adjudicated by USADA. Such comments may lead some to question his bias and motivation and calls of national protectionism.
But Tygart DID comment on Jarrion Lawson's case and Brenda Martinez's case. Like I said, Tygart is not publicity-shy, he's also repeatedly criticised WADA rules in this area. If he thought Houlihan could be used to further his crusade to have these rules changed, then he'd use her case. He hasn't said a single word, except to remind USATF that she is a banned athlete and is not allowed to compete.
That strikes me as noteworthy. As the head of USADA, it's almost certain he has had access to the entirety of her case, both argumentation and evidence. Would he really stay quiet if this was a clear case of injustice?
Your point 3 is not what you said; you missed stuff out to change the meaning.
Seriously? You'll never stop lying.
Check, I wrote:
"I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again."
Not the connecting "and".
That sentence is short for: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and I almost wish now that CAS will have to decide again." That's a huge difference to: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal. Fact: CAS will have to decide again."
When will you apologize for inventing stuff? Never of course, you'll just keep lying. Can you at least register your handle, so that I can add you to my ignore list?
You now change what you said to what you meant to say. Try a primary school English book to stop your errors.
Your point 3 is not what you said; you missed stuff out to change the meaning.
Seriously? You'll never stop lying.
Check, I wrote:
"I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again."
Not the connecting "and".
That sentence is short for: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and I almost wish now that CAS will have to decide again." That's a huge difference to: "I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal. Fact: CAS will have to decide again."
When will you apologize for inventing stuff? Never of course, you'll just keep lying. Can you at least register your handle, so that I can add you to my ignore list?
Still weeping as how silly you were sayings the CAS decision indicated designer drugs.
But Tygart DID comment on Jarrion Lawson's case and Brenda Martinez's case. Like I said, Tygart is not publicity-shy, he's also repeatedly criticised WADA rules in this area. If he thought Houlihan could be used to further his crusade to have these rules changed, then he'd use her case. He hasn't said a single word, except to remind USATF that she is a banned athlete and is not allowed to compete.
That strikes me as noteworthy. As the head of USADA, it's almost certain he has had access to the entirety of her case, both argumentation and evidence. Would he really stay quiet if this was a clear case of injustice?
Appeal in process; do pay attention.
That's irrelevant, it's an appeal over process, not substance, and I've been ignoring your posts because you bore me
It's not relevant what she ordered, but what she ate.
She’s a woman in her 20’s who has more than likely ate enough meat to know the difference between pork and beef without chomping through most of a burrito..
I believe you that she is old enough to know whether the burrito she ate wasn't the one she ordered. Glad we could clear that up.
She’s a woman in her 20’s who has more than likely ate enough meat to know the difference between pork and beef without chomping through most of a burrito..
and not just pork but pork offal which has a very distinct flavour and is an acquired taste. personally I’m more inclined to believe what’s on the the receipt rather than the fantastic and oh so convenient tale spun by a convicted drug cheat doper.
Pork offal isn't just one thing. What would "offal" taste like when chopped and ground-up and mixed with spices and other ingredients like in a burrito or in chorizo?
But Tygart DID comment on Jarrion Lawson's case and Brenda Martinez's case. Like I said, Tygart is not publicity-shy, he's also repeatedly criticised WADA rules in this area. If he thought Houlihan could be used to further his crusade to have these rules changed, then he'd use her case. He hasn't said a single word, except to remind USATF that she is a banned athlete and is not allowed to compete.
That strikes me as noteworthy. As the head of USADA, it's almost certain he has had access to the entirety of her case, both argumentation and evidence. Would he really stay quiet if this was a clear case of injustice?
It's normal he comments on Martinez's case because it was adjudicated by USADA.
I didn't find any comments on Lawson's case specifically beyond "Tygart declined to comment on Lawson's case specifically" and "We understand that the AIU did its job under the WADA rules given what we know about the case" and "The issue, however, is really whether the WADA rules are fair in these types of cases".
I don't see any reason why USADA would have "access to the entirety of (Houlihan's) case, both argumentation and evidence". They were not a party to the case.
She is still appealing the case, so he might really stay quiet to avoid any interference with a legal process.
His repeated criticisms applies to all cases of inadvertent ingestion from meat, legal supplements, and legal medicine.
and not just pork but pork offal which has a very distinct flavour and is an acquired taste. personally I’m more inclined to believe what’s on the the receipt rather than the fantastic and oh so convenient tale spun by a convicted drug cheat doper.
Pork offal isn't just one thing. What would "offal" taste like when chopped and ground-up and mixed with spices and other ingredients like in a burrito or in chorizo?
Not like beef, thats for sure.
Lots of grasping for straws here for the convicted doper!
I found two documents with the same title -- a paper with a Figure 8, and a one page summary with a Figure 5, which look like the same graph.
I found nothing publicly documenting her apparent shift in personal experience and research since then that supports the testimony she gave to this CAS Panel.
For those who want another glimpse of Prof. Ayotte -- she appears in Brian Fogel's "Icarus" around 1:37 into the film, as Brian Fogel hands over the information Russian information to WADA and IOC representatives.
Ayotte did claim at one time that Houlihan’s delta value of ~ -23 was normal. But even if she changed her views since then, she still presented a false picture of the research in order create a narritive that since 2018 (as new research on oral supplements showed many values around -23) her lab noticed nandrolone results in two groups around -23 and around -29. Then she proceeded to try and link Houlihan to Amazon.com supplements. The whole time she knew that research since 2002 has shown similar groupings and that measurements of supplements around -23 was rare at that time. I think the CAS and Ross Tucker should have examined the accuracy of these and other statements (e.g., 2.4 ng/mL after pork meat ingestion) after what happened in the Lawson case.
Pork offal isn't just one thing. What would "offal" taste like when chopped and ground-up and mixed with spices and other ingredients like in a burrito or in chorizo?
Not like beef, thats for sure.
Lots of grasping for straws here for the convicted doper!
Speaking of grasping for straws, why is everyone deflecting with irrelevant things like what she ordered, what she realized as she ate it, or what a beef, pork, or offal tastes like?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.